One of my more bizarre hobbies is to watch lectures on YouTube on varying nerdy topics such as physics, philosophy, theology, mathematics, or cosmology. Recently I was watching one of Sean Carroll’s lectures on cosmology (great stuff if you are interested) and noticed that YouTube suggested some related videos that may be of interest to me. One of those videos was Carroll’s debate with William Lane Craig, a somewhat famous religious philosopher and debater. They were debating whether cosmology and quantum physics prove the existence of God (Craig asserted the positive while Carroll asserted the negative). It’s a fascinating debate, though I’m generally not a fan of debates because they generally reward rhetorical one-upmanship rather than thoughtful dialogue. Because I watched that video, YouTube suggested I might be interested in other videos debating various religious claims, most of which debated the existence of God. I went on a debate-watching spree and, at the conclusion, remained unpersuaded by either side.
All of that got me thinking about the various arguments put forward for the existence of God, which even to this day are largely drawn from Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways. I’ll outline them here, with each of the descriptions sourced from the Wikipedia article on the subject.
The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
In the world, we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.
The Argument of the First Cause
In the world, we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so, therefore, there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God.
The Argument from Contingency
In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, given infinite time, this possibility would be realized and nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God.
The Argument from Degree
We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc. For example, sick animals and healthy animals, and well-drawn circles as well as poorly drawn ones. But judging something as being “more” or “less” implies some standard against which it is being judged. Therefore, there is something which is goodness itself, and this everyone understands to be God.
Argument from Final Cause or Ends
We see various non-intelligent objects in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results. So their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.
Over the years various people have argued the validity of Aquinas’ Five Ways, with modern theist debaters, such as William Lane Craig, utilizing physical and social sciences to argue their case. Example arguments are:
- The Big Bang proves that some Primary Mover (i.e., God) jump started our universe.
- The human desire for religious traditions is proof of a collective longing for God.
- The fixed speed of light, Plank’s Constant, and other teleological arguments.
While it is interesting to read or hear these various arguments for and against the existence of God, I eventually lose interest. I don’t think these types of arguments will ever definitively prove the existence of God, for if God is to fully condescend to all people, he must be understandable to all. As a result, one shouldn’t need a PhD in philosophy in order to comprehend the existence of God. Instead, the process of obtaining “evidence” of God’s existence will forever remain simple and subjective, and thus will be unpersuasive to materialists, naturalists, or rationalists.
At the end of the day I think the tools to discover God are present within the great religious traditions of the world, for I believe knowledge of God is best obtained through experiential means. Prayer, ritual, liturgy, contemplation, meditation, community, etc., are all tools which have been wielded by adherents of the world’s great religious traditions as a means of discovering God. Science may detect the effects of this process, such as MRI scans of brain activity during contemplative prayer, but science ultimately fails to describe the source of those effects. Instead, the experiential process is similar to the love of a spouse. At first, when courting, one is able to describe to one’s friends the details of one’s attraction to another; however, after 20 years of marriage, one’s feelings for one’s spouse cannot be reduced to words. The cumulative experience of those 20 years brings a familiarity and intimacy that defies description. The behavior of such a couple becomes the evidence of their intimate bond.
And so it is for the believer in God: the life of that believer becomes the evidence of God, and for a Christian, that life is to be centered around the example of Jesus Christ, which is why it is critical that Christians follow the teaching of Jesus to love one another as he loves us. Instead, today we see professed Christians (or a Christian nation) turn away (or abuse through the separation of families) millions of refugees and asylum seekers – the modern-day Lazaruses at our gates. As a result, many will conclude that the evidence so proffered is for a petty God they find unappealing and unpersuasive. If we believers want to argue for the existence of God, we should do it through our behavior – by being the image bearers of the loving God we come to know through experience.
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
John 13:34-35 [Emphasis mine]
Wheat & Tares 
Cody wrote: “…one shouldn’t need a PhD in philosophy in order to comprehend the existence of God.”
In fact, a PhD in philosophy may inhibit one from knowing God.
Proof of God comes by learning about God by the means God has given. The Book of Mormon is one such means. The Book of Mormon explains how to come unto Christ and obtain a witness of God’s existence. As God reveals Himself to the earnest seeker, witness accumulate until certainty is born.
Jacob explains it this way:
6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea. Jacob 4:6
Jarom teaches it this way:
4 And there are many among us who have many revelations, for they are not all stiffnecked. And as many as are not stiffnecked and have faith, have communion with the Holy Spirit, which maketh manifest unto the children of men, according to their faith. Jarom 1:4
It’s worked for me as well.
Having trouble entering comment.
Quote:
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
John 13:34-35 “
I’ve always thought there was something very profound about this that we often miss.
Combine that with:
“ And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.”
And
“38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.”
It brings in a perspective that I think we miss.
No, so-called proofs of God’s existence don’t persuade a non-believing person to believe in God the way a geometric proof might convince someone to accept the principles of geometry. These proofs really function more to help believers understand what it is they believe and why, and to help refine one’s view of God. They are theology, not philosophy or science. They help us think carefully about what we believe about God.
I disagree with Jared that philosophy inhibits belief in God. That is as untrue as the idea that a knowledge of science or history or medicine or anything else inhibits belief. But that is probably a common view within Mormonism, where leaders often preach a thinly veiled version of fideism and often depict faith and knowledge as opposed categories. But that’s wrong. The glory of God is intelligence, not ignorance. The Church needs more theology, not less theology.
Except for the argument from degree (a variation of Platonic forms argument), Aquinas’ other arguments are all variations of his argument of first cause. In the end, these arguments are addressed only to people who lack the imagination to conceive of a non-Platonic universe. Cody’s approach and the scriptures cited by Stephen are much more conducive to an experience or knowledge of God.
Jared did not say that philosophy inhibits belief in God. He said a Ph.D in philosophy “may” inhibit such a belief. As a drop-out from a philosophy Ph.D program, I have observed that as well as persons for whom such a Ph.D did not inhibit belief at all. Similarly, a Ph.D. in religious education or religion also “may” inhibit such belief. In my long-ago experience with the BYU philosophy and religion departments, I saw religion professors engaged in priestcraft, but never the philosophy professors I dealt with. In fact, it amused me how one philosophy professor responded to a religion professor’s complaining about “teaching philosophies of men.” He merely noted that, yes, he taught about the philosophies of men, but he did not teach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture as was common in the religion department. I’m told it has gotten better, but it remains the case that in multiple years of post-secondary education and through multiple degrees, the thing about education most damaging to my testimony or faith was the BYU religion department. I’m glad even that department couldn’t kill it.
What I haven’t grasped from Jared’s comment is why “certainty” rather than faith is desirable. That’s not to say I didn’t want it before I learned to live more comfortably with ambiguity and the great variety and complexity of human experience. Following the BoM instructions on developing faith certainly doesn’t result in certainty for everyone. I’ve wondered why Jacob reported “we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea” without reporting any specific instances of that or any reasons why one should be ordering trees, mountains and waves about. Is Jacob enamored of power over inanimate objects? Is he merely indulging in hyperbole? Did he need to move a tree?
With all due respect to Jared, the goal of this life is not certainty. One simply cannot be absolutely certain about any god’s existence unless something rare and out of the ordinary happens (like an actual visitation from God and Jesus). Short of that, we need to remember that the scriptures remind us to walk by faith. This is sort of my problem with the whole Fair Mormon/defender of the faith idea. Faith doesn’t need defending since it is, by definition, not a logically-arrived-at conclusion; it’s an entirely subjective matter between the individual and whatever may be out there in the cosmos.
And regarding the PhD comment, I think Jared highlights another issue in the church, that there is somehow a dissonance between learning all one can and walking by faith. I’ve always seen them as much more consonant than a lot of Mormons. It does not speak well of us that we fear intellectuals or that we eschew learning because we think we shouldn’t as it might threaten or diminish our faith. On the contrary, I think it helps grow our faith. That doesn’t mean it leads to certainty, of course; as I stated above, faith is a matter of faith, not certainty, but I do think it can help us to expand our vision of the gospel and how we think about it. I’ve always thought that if your faith is so fragile that it’s threatened by using reason (a process the scriptures themselves command us to employ before praying about anything), it’s probably not worth calling faith. Dave B. said it best: “The church needs more theology, not less theology.”
I’m for education. But hearken unto the counsels of God.
28 O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 9:28 – 29)
Regardless of the value of education (I think it is valuable), my point is that God’s interactions with humans need to be basic, visceral, and speak to our core in order to also be universal. No PhD required. Instead, the school and tools are available to all in the great religious traditions of the world, and through experience one gains some confidence, through faith, of God’s existence and love.
Ostler in his podcast and books series Exploring Mormon Thought dismantles a lot of the Thomist views of God like these, and provides a Mormon alternative.
These comments have made me think about the experiential side of religion, and particularly of group-oriented religious practices. LDS worship services (IMO) tend to be relatively light on experiential focus compared to services in other traditions. We focus on logic and intellect and cognition—which are all important pieces of experience, but they don’t engage people fully.
My uncle invited me to a Tennebrae service at a mainstream Protestant Church on Good Friday, and I felt deeply moved in ways I have never felt in any LDS service. I recognize that a lot of it has to do with sound and lighting effects, as well as with congregation participation. And recognizing it doesn’t take away from the power of the service.
Similarly, years ago while studying at BYU, I visited a Friday afternoon service at a mosque near Salt Lake. I was very impressed, again, at the moving spiritual experience I had when I experienced worship that incorporated sound, movement, and smell (not sure if that’s always part of it, but it was this time).
I see those other parts of our whole experience as just as valid and just as likely to lead to truth, even if it’s a kind of truth that’s harder to express in words or support with rational arguments.
If those original 5 are the reasons one should believe in God, it is amazing anyone does believe.
The problem for me are those who know there is a God and what he wants us to do.
I would be impressed by the evidence of a person who could move trees etc by the power of God.
I would also be impressed if the more religious a country was the more loving, tolerant, inclusive it was. Saudi Arabia, for muslems, and US for christians, Israel for jews, doesn’t really prove that there is a God, or that you should follow him.
“various arguments put forward for the existence of God”
The Pearl of Great Price offers essentially the same argument. Abraham 3:19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.
In other words, there cannot fail to be “God” simply because somewhere in the universe is the most supreme being by any measure. That is to say, fastest runner, highest jumper, and so on. But none of this logic is useful in determining your relationship to this “uncaused cause of everything else”.
Sheep know their shepherd’s voice. It doesn’t require logic (although it’s nice to have).